GEOC Meeting November 10, 2014

In attendance:

Mike Young – Chair, (Karen Piantek – Admin), David Gross, Tom Meyer, Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, Manuela Wagner, Kathleen Tonry, Stephanie Milan

Regrets:

Eric Schultz, Nicole Coleman, Peter Kaminsky, Eliana Rojas, Scott Campbell

Meeting called to order at 11:47am.

1. Minutes ofthe October 30, 2014 meeting were accepted without revisions.

2. Announcements

A.2014-15 Course Re-alignment – All materials have been sent; Deadline is December 5

B.Next steps on the proposal regarding First Year Writing waivers; data has been requested from OIRE – No response to recent query

  • OIRE has not responded to a request about when data can be expected. K. Piantek will follow up.

C.Note from the chair: UITS has been advised to stop offering the HuskyCT Computer Competency multiple choice test to incoming Freshman (decision of the GEOC chair)

  • At this point, a motion is needed from Computer Technology subcommittee to delete the competency.

3. Subcommittee Reports(None submitted)

4. Other Reports and Discussion

  1. 2014-15 Provost’s Competition – Extend deadline? Cancel Competition?
  • M. Young reported on a meeting with Associate Provost Sally Reis and indicated that she was okay with extending the deadline for Fall proposals.
  • Further it was reported that Sally Reis asked that the competition’s focus be shifted to solicit more online courses and thatPeter Diplock should be involved in this initiative.
  • It was clarified that the purpose of the competition would not change, but it would advertise a preference for online or blended courses.
  • M. Wagner said that from her understanding, having an online course designer’s help is key to developing a successful course.
  • The GEOC determined that they would advertise the competition in the Spring and then run it in the Fall with a focus on online courses.
  • The GEOC also decided to extend the deadline for the current Fall competition to December 1.
  1. Contingency plan for Spring 2015 if no W Co-chair is found
  • It was suggested that a request should be made to the Deans to help fill this vacancy. M. Young will follow up with Sally Reis.
  1. Reconceptualizing Gen Ed: Competency-based data-driven instruction (suggestions from Sally Reis) – see recent Blog Post:
  • M. Young debriefed GEOC on the meeting he had with Sally Reis in which she raised the possibility that UConn might consider switching to a competency-based system for General Education.
  • GEOC members expressed confusion about what such a system would look like.
  • M. Young explained that competency-based education(CBE) moves away from grades that average skills and include factors like participation or extra credit. CBE focuses on defined skills and assesses whether or not a student can show evidence of mastery of that skill, often through a portfolio or standardized assessment.
  • T. Meyer asked if there would beonly one competency per course. M. Young felt there would probably be more than one competency incorporated into some courses, such as Information literacy outcomes and writing fluency outcomes.
  • K. Tonry asked if assessment would be exam-based. The answer was that it was possible in some cases.
  • T. Meyer noted that UConn currently has a 1-to-1 approach to taking Gen Ed courses and the journey towards graduation. He suggested that upsetting up that system might cause issues for some. As an example, he asked what happens if a student passes two of three competencies in a course. Now that student must either take another course to achieve the third competency or even take the same course again.
  • More than one member questioned the purpose of a Gen Ed overhaul toward competencies.For example it was raised as to whether there was a perception that General Educations was not working under the current system. The evidence for this premise was questioned. The focus on competenciesmight imply that there may be “incompetence.”
  • One member suggested that if there is no problem, GEOC should respectfully decline the request to consider CBE. He noted that changing the system would be a huge process, and that General Education was already redesigned relatively recently. What we have is working, perhaps imperfectly. But what does work perfectly?
  • M. Young explained that the topic seems to have been brought up in relation to NEASC accreditation. Under the current system there is no evidence to support specific skill development; UConn suggests that students attain relevant skills, but the current system really just shows that students have fulfilled the requirements of specific courses. The concern is that students don’t take General Education seriously, that it is just a checklist.
  • One member was not opposed to tweaking Gen Ed since students don’t seem to have the broad view that one might hope they would have. The system could be simplified, but this would make it closer to the way it was before implementation of the current system.
  • One member suggested that GEOC conduct a survey to see how faculty, students and particularly academic advisors view Gen Ed. There are many different questions related to this issue. The question of how students who pursue double majors meet Gen Ed was discussed. Often Gen Ed overlaps with a “minor” and thus is not general beyond the two specialties.
  • One member felt that GEOC could do a better job of informing colleagues of the Gen Ed guidelines, but she didnot see a need to regulate the actual implementation.
  • Another concern was that people were “gaming” the system. For example, some departments dictate which courses their students should take to fulfill a specific content area. It was suggested, however, that perhaps this was more of an advising issue.
  • There was discussion of the conflicting goals of optimizing student preparation for careers with a very proscribed plans of study versus the idea of really giving students leeway to explore a general education. Leaving determinations about General Education up to the departments was alsodiscussed. The up side would be departmental buy-in for those who opted to include and support Gen Ed.But it was felt that this would be chaotic. It was noted that departments often depend on each other for Gen Ed offerings, so there would need to be a lot more communication between departments if they were granted more leeway to develop their own General Education system. For example, if PSYC decided that students needed particular Q courses, they would be reliant on MATH to offer sufficient classes with seats open to all students.
  • Members wondered what the effects on budgets would be and suggested that departments might encounter the same problems that English is having with support for FYW courses for all university students.
  • K. Piantek suggested as a final thought that the GEOC find a way to promote buy-in to General Education by focusing on the students themselves, while others suggested that engaging with academic advisors might be the target.

Meeting adjourned at12:50pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Piantek

GEOC Administrator